“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated.

That post deserves congratulations!

It's like you threw yourself on an unexploded irony meter that none of the rest of us had noticed, in order to save us all from harm.

there’s one report of a cat rapidly using up the last bit of its ninth life from a huge abdominal tumor is now on the mend and feisty enough to shove the other cats aside to get to the food dish

I propose a new standard for FDA drug approval: One report. About a cat. If somebody says somebody's cat benefitted from a certain drug, that's science and by golly, you're in.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated.

That post deserves congratulations!

It's like you threw yourself on an unexploded irony meter that none of the rest of us had noticed, in order to save us all from harm.

It was training and instinct. A searing light, I was lifted into the air, and I saw my mother and father beckoning. A long silence. Then I was back on the tard, face up, momentarily blinded, ears ringing. Ken Burns' face swam into view.

I pulled the chain from my sweat-soaked shirt and examined my stainless Darwin. His profile had absorbed the entire force of the irony, which was dissolved in the weary honesty of his gaze. I remembered that my elderly parents are alive and well.

And they say there are no atheists in foxholes.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated.

N Wells is right, this post deserves congratulations. Good catch.

This post is now up at Pharyngula..

Quote

Those rascals at antievolution.org are like the Baker Street Irregulars of the evolutionary forces—they're always doing the legwork to come up with interesting bits of data. Like, for instance, this wonderful example of hypocrisy/inconsistency at Uncommon Descent.

To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Sorry for the off-topic but I wanted to leave a note for Blipey and I know it'll get to him if I leave it here.

I was checking the calendar to make sure there weren't any all day soccer tournaments on Sunday, May 13th, and was reminded that's Mother's Day. I won't be available for any meetings on that day.

10:19 PM

SOCCER IS FOR HOMOS HOMO - dt

Geez... I'm quite good at football (soccer)

Football is what people who are finely molded men machines like me play. Soccer is what prissy French homos play you homo. You're outta here - dt

ARE YOU HOMO'S CALLING ME A SOCCER MOM? I'M ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER I LIKE AND IF THAT MEANS TAKING THE LONG WAY TO THE SOCCER FIELD AND WEARING A HAWAIIAN SHIRT, THEN IT'S MY CALL.-dt

HO RAH SOCCER ME

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words.

Wow, of course framing is bad. Democrats do it!

William Dembski, the title "Intelligent Design" is FRAMING.It's like "personal accounts" instead of "privatizing social security" or "redeploy" vs. "cut and run." or "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creation Science" instead of "Creationism."

“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated.

N Wells is right, this post deserves congratulations. Good catch.

This post is now up at Pharyngula..

Quote

Those rascals at antievolution.org are like the Baker Street Irregulars of the evolutionary forces—they're always doing the legwork to come up with interesting bits of data. Like, for instance, this wonderful example of hypocrisy/inconsistency at Uncommon Descent.

To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

the real battle ground for ID’s success in the USA is not in the atheist demographic of the population (which is about 3% of the population)! The battle ground is within the community of theists. Given that 91% of the population are theists and that 48% are creationists, it means 43% of the population are some sort of theistic evolutionist (TE). The TE’s are the largest demographic group where ID stands to make serious gains over time.

I'll take three tangents here.

1. I thought that ID didn't have a problem with evolution.2. Isn't ID supposed to be a form of theistic evolution?3. Basically what Sal is saying is that 34% of college students being creationists (where did they do this survey?) is not enough. Did the survey question separate out creationism and ID? You'd think there would be a huge overlap. It's not like some baptist college kid is going to say yes to a question about his belief in creationism and no to a question about his belief in intelligent design, unless he thinks God is not intelligent. So what Sal is basically saying is that there are too many people out there that believe in God but they must not believe hard enough. If we could only get them to reject science, then we could get more souls into heaven.

And then cordova admits just that in the first testimonial:

Quote

I would argue though, that if Darwin’s theory were true, I think I would have less reason to believe, personally speaking. If my situation is similar to many, then TE’s have arguably done a lot to promote an unscientific idea which has eroded many people’s faith.

Too many SCIENTISTS are ill-informed of general science issues, phil of science, much less the wider logic, epistemology, ethics and metaphysics to make sound counsel. A SCIENTIST IN HIS LAB COAT SPEAKING BEYOND HIS SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IS NO BETTER THAN (AND OFTEN WORSE THAN) A COMMON-SENSICAL PERSON WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF PRUDENCE.

metaphysics? as in "what is the nature of reality"? That's the whole friggin point of science.

And a scientist in his lab coat speaking beyond his specific expertise is almost like a lawyer or a math/philosopher yamming on about biology.

To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Dembski made megabucks off ID? Interesting point, Salvador.

Dembski was, in fact, one of the few who came out ahead financially.

- Pepper Hamilton waived over $1 million in legal fees- The plaintiffs got $1 each- The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs got nothing- Thomas More got bupkis, other than the pleasure of being threatened by Dembski- The Dover school board got stuck with a bill for $1 million

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Sheesh, is anyone else having trouble keeping up with all the action over at Overwhelmed Dunces?

Hilariously, Helena posted this in response to the tightened censorship moderation:

Quote

This site used to be buzzing with nasty troll-posts, and now we have a calm place where we can discuss the serious and important issue of Intelligent Design.

Thanks for shutting down those ID deniers - we can have a perfectly good debate without all those closed-minded trolls

A few hours later, Helena posted some musings on whether halos are manifestations of Designer easter eggs, and challenged materialists "to claim that there is no value in being able to tap into this energy supply". (No, I'm not making this up.)

Since then, nothing, other than the sound of Helena smacking her forehead as she realizes that you actually can't have a "perfectly good debate" without opponents.

(Assuming that Helena isn't one of us, which she very well could be.)

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Um, what about Kansas?

And Ohio?

And, uh, Georgia?

Oh, and what about the Wedge Document itself? If, as Slavedor seems to be blithering, ID isn't creationism and has nothing to do with religion, then, uh, why does the Wedge Document itself list "mainstream church(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation" as one of its objectives, and why does it list its goal as "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" . . . ?

Naturally, I don't expect Slavedor to answer that question. Any more than I expect him to answer any of the *other* 35 or so questions I've asked him (repeatedly) over the years.

I do suspect gradualism predominates, but I am not necessarily wedded to that stance. Certainly I believe in gradual changes in *nonfunctional* molecular regions; there is much empirical evidence towards that end.

But as for what occurs at the time of speciations in functional DNA and in bone morphology, how fast it occurs, etc. I really don’t know. That is why I refrain from writing any lengthy defense of gradualism. Right now, as a molecular biologist, I simply think gradualism is the more conservative stance. Yet I can certainly understand how folks like Gould, from a palentological perspective, might arrive at a different position. I can tell you that there are active research projects going on concerning how reproductive barriers form between populations; studies that directly address how rapidly biological speciation could conceivably occur.

Once species are isolated reproductively they continue on their own, independent, evolutionary trajectories. Just how fast they can substantially change subsequently is another fascinating question for which I have no good answer. I will venture an educated guess, though…To quote from a former computer science professor of mine, the best answer will be “it depends.”

Watch out Great_Ape! You are being nuanced, and you know that means trouble.

Consider a finished tabletop. Smooth, right? But if rub your hand across it, maybe you'll feel a bit of roughness. A magnifying glass might reveal coarseness in the grain. A microscope and you'll find great ridges and vast canyons.

As a first-order approximation, evolution is gradual. Eukaryotes to metazoans to vertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to dinosaurs to birds taking eons of time. But as we look closer and closer, we start to notice that evolution moves at an uneven pace, most of the time slowly, sometimes very rapidly such as with adaptive radiation into new niches. If we look even closer, at the species level, we think we can even discern small discontinuities (perhaps observational artifacts). And of course, at the very finest levels, mutations are discrete events.

So what is "gradual"? After millions of years of evolutionary divergence, humans and other apes still strongly resemble one another, and human evolution is considered quite rapid in the scheme of things.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

“Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulatedWilliam Dembski

“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.

DaveScot, last year:

Quote

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor...

Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated.

Perhaps both Tard and Dumbski should do a Google search for "Frank Lutz" and let us know what they find . . . .

To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Wait a minute. Did he really say Dembski sued the Dover legal team, as in the Thomas More Law Center? Can that be right?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Wait a minute. Did he really say Dembski sued the Dover legal team, as in the Thomas More Law Center? Can that be right?

When Dembski insisted on having his own lawyer rather than the TMLC lawyer, they fired him. He insisted on getting the 200 bucks per hour he'd put in on research for the trial. At least, that's how I remember it.

--------------"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence that Santa doesn't exist. For example, the laws of physics show us that reindeer can't fly. We know that nobody lives at the North Pole. People have been there, and the living conditions are, well, not that great. We know that there's no toy factory up there. We know where toys are ACTUALLY made. We know from logic that no one can be at every house in the world delivering presents at the same moment in time… we know that's impossible. Now, I'll grant you all that this evidence could be classified, perhaps, as "indirect"… but it is evidence nonetheless.